Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben C Smith
Quote:
Originally Posted by neilgodfrey
I think we are going around in circles now. Where we differ appears to be over the exact nature of that extant evidence. I have discussed what, say, a book like Acts is (and the same applies to the gospels) as "evidence" in posts #50, #109 and #112. And I've discussed evidence from another perspective in another thread, where I included the following significant 1904 quote from E. Schwartz. It is in direct relation to the evidence of Papias, but the point applies to all ancient documents for which we have nothing but their own "self-attestation".
We have primary and secondary evidence interlocking in ways that enable us to "do history" with Julius Caesar. We have no comparable evidence at all about Jesus. |
Yes, we must be going in circles. I thought we were talking about Acts, and here suddenly we are talking about Jesus. 
Quote:
|
Is there any other area in (nonbiblical) historical studies where historians rely on the narratives within documents whose provenance is unknown and that lack any external controls?
|
Relying on narratives within documents whose provenance is unknown? Yes, of course historians often have to do that.
Going without external controls? I hope not.
Louis Gottschalk, Understanding History, page 144, on the process of determining the credibility of the particulars of a document:
The historian, however, is frequently obliged to use documents written by persons about whom nothing or relatively little is known. Even the hundreds of biographical dictionaries and encyclopedias already in existence may be of no help because the author's name is unknown or, if known, not to be found in the reference works. The historian must therefore depend upon the document itself to teach him what it can about the author. A single brief document may teach him much if he asks the right questions. Ben. |
But, without oral tradition, physical evidence or other credible written information to support the anonymous writing then its credibilty would be near zero.
A single brief anonymous document must be found to be credible by some means before it can be accepted to be of historical value.
07-26-2008, 03:14 PM
